[Wg-mwp] Wg-mwp Digest, Vol 3, Issue 15

delfi ramirez 2qt at segonquart.net
Wed Oct 18 23:18:14 EDT 2017


Dear colleagues:

It is no clear to me, and I do not agree either with the proposal member 
requirement ( requisites)  for the sub-working group.

Being precise on Jeremy's proposl

/The sub-working group should comprise those who have published academic 
research or who have practical experience of large-scale 
multi-stakeholder deliberative processes on Internet-related technical 
and/or public policy issues./

It does not seems clear, nether correct For several obejctive reasons 
that comes to mind

The mandatory convenience of a dedicated sub-working group (a team) 
should comprise those who can demonstrate their knowledge in the matter 
and are active participants of deliberative processes communities, 
companies; with the required knowledge on the matter to be treated.

  * On /the requirement 'to have published academic studies'/
  * This condition,
      o It does not suppose sufficient reason to establish any kind of
        nexus of trust in any member or participant from this working
        subgroup.
      o An academic work or research, is the written result of the work
        done by a team of people, not a single person, as we all know.
      o in the present XXI st scenario in which professionals of the
        public administration or Universities, share their private
        interests in pivoted companies or spin-offs, it arises the
        issue, the risk, that this experts may act for their own local
        or private benefit, instead of the general interest of the IGF.
      o It will be very attractive for me, researcher with published
        studies, to be part of this sub-working group.
      o *A sub-working group, whose activity and results are not
        re-commendatory **but mandatory* over the main group.
      o I can make use of my knowledge published in academic journals,
        but this does not imply that my personal and professional
        interest is reduced to the academic level only.
          + In this possible and undesirable scenario, being one of the
            four partners of a subgroup allows me to have not only the
            privilege of contributing, but also the one of obtaining
            privileged information for my personal purposes.
          + This undesirable scenario is known and well documented in
            countries with low or low level of development. (/Cyprus,
            S//pain or//Corsica came to mind, sorry lads/)
  * I propose*/may comprise those have published academic terms/*,
    as/the //le//ast/ condition to be part of a working-group.
      o Not mandatory, although congratulations to those who have
        published an academic study.
          + Public or private professionals who frequently publish their
            studies on the web, short medium articles available to a
            majority of readers, professionals who can know and disclose
            in an informative way complex and difficult terms to treat
            by non-experts, may be more suitable profiles to contribute.
      o A project or process means to learn . lessons learned are
        documented throughout the process project.
          + a project or process implies learning, which allows a mature
            and stable resolution or result.
          + The criterion of academic authority may be negative for the
            implicit learning of the project or phase.
          + A balance should be found in the members of each subgroup,
            when it is necessary to have the experience of an academic
            authority

  *

    On /the requirement//'who have practical experience of large-scale multi-stakeholder
    deliberative processes on Internet-related technical and/or public
    policy issues/'

      o

        Practical experience of large-scale deliberative processes *is a
        MUST***

      o the working sub-group must comprise *a ba**lanced team of both
        equal public policy experts and tech experts working to**gether*.
      o For a balanced record in the binding process, *avoid
        **sub-working subgroups****constituted solely by professionals
        belonging to the same sector or professional**activity* level.
          + The greater wealth of professional profile, the better
            result and profile debated to contribute in final proposal
            for every stage of the process.
          + Is in this level of work of the subgroup where decisions and
            consensus made are those that will be approved or defined by
            the main working group.
      o Every process must have "Phase" Process, even if the process is
        terminated, with a dedicated sub-working group for each phase.
      o *A **working sub-group, should not extend **beyond a delimited
        phase of the process***its participation, its influence,
        recommendations, nor its proposals.
      o

        Every working subgroup should have assigned a solely stage or
        phase of the main process.to achieve strong and broad consensus around the issue.

      o Working experts may work better and bring its knowledge and
        advice in the early stage of the process,others and the final stage.
      o issues can be considered as delimiters for each of the scenarios
        in a stage.
      o Every stage of the process shall comprise a full-time dedicated
        sub-working group focused for a single precise stage.
      o Every issue shall be solved and accomplished in a precise timing.
      o Every working sub-group can use its own framework or model to
        work in the assigned tasks, even through a non-binding process.
          + Once the objectives have been achieved by the working
            sub-group, this stage internal framework should be subject
            to the general framework of the process.
      o Those of who being commissioned or part of a sub-working group,
        have not previous expertise either in public policy or
        diplomatic work, *should not be required for important**or
        binding decisions or **advice**in a sub-working group* in a
        binding process.
      o Through a non-binding process, its work is required and equally
        qualified.
      o Some working groups may be deliberately opened to the community
        to reach comments and impressions on the stage or the process.
          + This comments or collaborative additions shall be indicated
            aside in a documented paper.

. Apologies for some undetermined terms. Cheers


On 10/18/2017 09:51 PM, wg-mwp-request at intgovforum.org wrote:
> Send Wg-mwp mailing list submissions to
> 	wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	wg-mwp-request at intgovforum.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	wg-mwp-owner at intgovforum.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wg-mwp digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>     1. Re: Proposed sub-working group charter (Fl?vio Rech Wagner)
>     2. Re: Proposed sub-working group charter (Renata Aquino Ribeiro)
>     3. Re: WebEx meeting invitation: MAG WG on Multiyear Strategic
>        Work Programme - Meeting II (Lynn St.Amour)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 14:27:10 -0200
> From: Fl?vio Rech Wagner <flavio at inf.ufrgs.br>
> To: wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
> Subject: Re: [Wg-mwp] Proposed sub-working group charter
> Message-ID: <a53d029b-004d-2b12-0538-1a68e515dada at inf.ufrgs.br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
> Dear Jeremy and colleagues
>
> I agree with the proposed charter, except for the suggested text of the
> final paragraph, which proposes that "membership of the sub-working
> group should comprise those who have published academic research or who
> have practical experience of large-scale multi-stakeholder deliberative
> processes on Internet-related technical and/or public policy issues".
> Although such expertise would be valuable and welcome, I don't think it
> should be enforced as a pre-condition for membership of the sub-working
> group. A more "soft" condition, for instance welcoming this expertise,
> could be better. And I would add to the text that expertise with the IGF
> processes would be also very welcome.
>
> Best,
>
> Flavio
>
>
> Em 17/10/2017 14:09, Jeremy Malcolm escreveu:
>> Since I was a proponent of the idea of the sub-working group that we
>> discussed during the last two calls, I've taken it upon myself to put
>> together a draft charter for it, on which your comments are invited.?
>> This hopefully gives a bit more clarity and substance to the proposal,
>> so that we can move forward if it seems generally acceptable, or
>> abandon it if not:
>>
>> This sub-working group's mandate is to produce a short option paper
>> for consideration of the full working group, outlining a range of
>> possible approaches towards the fulfilment of the IGF's mandate from
>> paragraph 72(g) of the Tunis Agenda to "Identify emerging issues,
>> bring them to the attention of the relevant bodies and the general
>> public, and, where appropriate, make recommendations."
>>
>> Without prejudging that any changes from current practice are
>> necessary, the option paper should address:
>>
>>    * What factors would make it more or less appropriate for the IGF to
>>      produce an output addressing a particular policy issue in
>>      conformance with its mandate in section 72(g)?
>>        o For example?strong and broad consensus around the issue, no
>>          other multi-stakeholder body directly addressing the issue
>>    * Are existing mechanisms for the developments of outputs within the
>>      IGF (eg. Dynamic Coalitions or Best Practice Fora) appropriate for
>>      the generation of draft text on such an issue from the IGF?
>>        o If not, what new mechanisms (such as expert working groups, or
>>          participatory political processes such as the "citizens jury",
>>          etc.) could be used to develop such draft text?
>>    * What form or forms could these outputs of the IGF take that would
>>      be consistent with its status as a forum for multi-stakeholder
>>      policy dialogue through a non-binding process?
>>        o For example, are Internet technical community processes of
>>          offering voluntarily-adopted "Requests for Comment" applicable?
>>    * Once draft text has been produced, what kinds of further process
>>      could allow for the IGF as a plenary body to meaningfully consider
>>      and provide feedback on it, and what institutional reforms to the
>>      IGF would be necessary to support that process?
>>    * What should be the threshold standard for the publication of a
>>      text as such an output of the IGF?
>>        o For example, would it be necessary to achieve a "rough
>>          consensus" standard within the community of registered on-site
>>          and online IGF participants?
>>
>> As the working group is being convened for its technical expertise,
>> membership of the sub-working group should comprise those who have
>> published academic research or who have practical experience of
>> large-scale multi-stakeholder deliberative processes on
>> Internet-related technical and/or public policy issues. A maximum size
>> of four members is suggested.
>>
>> -- 
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundation
>> https://eff.org
>> jmalcolm at eff.org
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>> Public key:https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wg-mwp mailing list
>> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://intgovforum.org/mailman/private/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171018/7d1bffc3/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 16:59:27 -0200
> From: Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> To: Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org>
> Cc: wg-mwp <wg-mwp at intgovforum.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wg-mwp] Proposed sub-working group charter
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAMokdMxSW6qCxr0eKJTUZwTwCPCWBqTOeMo9J3f6WXukz5useA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi
>
> Why limited to 4 people?
> How to ensure equitable representation in this group and community
> participation?
>
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
>
>> Since I was a proponent of the idea of the sub-working group that we
>> discussed during the last two calls, I've taken it upon myself to put
>> together a draft charter for it, on which your comments are invited.  This
>> hopefully gives a bit more clarity and substance to the proposal, so that
>> we can move forward if it seems generally acceptable, or abandon it if not:
>>
>> This sub-working group's mandate is to produce a short option paper for
>> consideration of the full working group, outlining a range of possible
>> approaches towards the fulfilment of the IGF's mandate from paragraph 72(g)
>> of the Tunis Agenda to "Identify emerging issues, bring them to the
>> attention of the relevant bodies and the general public, and, where
>> appropriate, make recommendations."
>>
>> Without prejudging that any changes from current practice are necessary,
>> the option paper should address:
>>
>>     - What factors would make it more or less appropriate for the IGF to
>>     produce an output addressing a particular policy issue in conformance with
>>     its mandate in section 72(g)?
>>        - For example?strong and broad consensus around the issue, no other
>>        multi-stakeholder body directly addressing the issue
>>        - Are existing mechanisms for the developments of outputs within
>>     the IGF (eg. Dynamic Coalitions or Best Practice Fora) appropriate for the
>>     generation of draft text on such an issue from the IGF?
>>        - If not, what new mechanisms (such as expert working groups, or
>>        participatory political processes such as the "citizens jury", etc.) could
>>        be used to develop such draft text?
>>        - What form or forms could these outputs of the IGF take that would
>>     be consistent with its status as a forum for multi-stakeholder policy
>>     dialogue through a non-binding process?
>>        - For example, are Internet technical community processes of
>>        offering voluntarily-adopted "Requests for Comment" applicable?
>>     - Once draft text has been produced, what kinds of further process
>>     could allow for the IGF as a plenary body to meaningfully consider and
>>     provide feedback on it, and what institutional reforms to the IGF would be
>>     necessary to support that process?
>>     - What should be the threshold standard for the publication of a text
>>     as such an output of the IGF?
>>     - For example, would it be necessary to achieve a "rough consensus"
>>        standard within the community of registered on-site and online IGF
>>        participants?
>>
>> As the working group is being convened for its technical expertise,
>> membership of the sub-working group should comprise those who have
>> published academic research or who have practical experience of large-scale
>> multi-stakeholder deliberative processes on Internet-related technical
>> and/or public policy issues. A maximum size of four members is suggested.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Malcolm
>> Senior Global Policy Analyst
>> Electronic Frontier Foundationhttps://[email protected]
>>
>> Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161
>>
>> :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::
>>
>> Public key: https://www.eff.org/files/2016/11/27/key_jmalcolm.txt
>> PGP fingerprint: 75D2 4C0D 35EA EA2F 8CA8 8F79 4911 EC4A EDDF 1122
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wg-mwp mailing list
>> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://intgovforum.org/mailman/private/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171018/4eeb7fa2/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 21:49:50 -0400
> From: "Lynn St.Amour" <st.amour at bluewin.ch>
> To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com>
> Cc: wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
> Subject: Re: [Wg-mwp] WebEx meeting invitation: MAG WG on Multiyear
> 	Strategic Work Programme - Meeting II
> Message-ID: <BCF8FB68-A43B-4722-BBA9-479FC3F0F4A4 at bluewin.ch>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Dear Renata,
>
> just a quick note to say that I, and I am sure many MAG members, agree with the need to get WGs and other IGF improvement areas started earlier in the year (or even addressed on a continuing basis).   This has been somewhat hampered in the past by the timing of the MAG appointments and the subsequent need to prioritize the IGF meeting program, and we are working to improve on this.   As you will have seen this is something we are all trying to advance, and should have a much earlier start on this year.
>
> With thanks and I look forward to your participation in the WG.
>
> Best,
> Lynn
>
>
>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:21 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Lynn and all
>>
>> My apologies for not being able to join the meetings of this WG and I haven't got around at the notes either (although I saw them, thanks Julian).
>> I hope to send in comments soon and catch up w/ recording.
>>
>> On a more general note, I feel I am "hunting a mythical whale" since it's less than 2 months to IGF2017.
>> If possible, the work of these WGs should go on or start earlier in the year as not to overlap w/ event preparations.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Renata
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:14 PM, Lynn St.Amour <st.amour at bluewin.ch> wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> please find below the webex invitation for our MAG WG on Multiyear Strategic Work Programme this Thursday Oct. 5th from 1300 - 1400 UTC.
>>
>> Agenda to follow shortly.
>>>
>>> MAG WG on Multiyear Strategic Work Programme - Meeting II
>>> Thursday, October 5, 2017
>>> 1:00 pm  |  Greenwich Time (Reykjavik, GMT)  |  1 hr
>>>
>>>
>>> Register
>>> After your request has been approved, you'll receive instructions for joining the meeting.
>>>
>>>   
>>>
>>> Need help? Go to http://help.webex.co
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wg-mwp mailing list
>> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
>> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wg-mwp mailing list
> Wg-mwp at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Wg-mwp Digest, Vol 3, Issue 15
> *************************************
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/wg-mwp_intgovforum.org/attachments/20171018/17d3845f/attachment.html>


More information about the Wg-mwp mailing list